Mazda CX-5

Went to the Chicago Auto Show yesterday and looked at the OUTSIDE of the new CX-5. Pretty impressed as it looks better in person than the pictures which were pretty good themselves. I say outside because they were locked up! These vehicle are due on dealer lots next week so I couldn't believe they were locked. The new Escape was open for viewing and touching and isn't due for several months.

Wish I could report more on the CX-5 but I think Mazda could have really generated more interest by letting people touchy-feely. It seemed to be a popular vehicle to look at just the same from what I could see of the crowd interest in it.

You're right but the "35mpg" in a suv does get people attention. No different than Cruze advertising "42mpg" and then people find out they have to pay extra for it. I think the 26mpg in the city is the real enticer here not the hwy mpg. Really looking forward to mag reviews of this in final form.

Don't really know why the big difference in the two trannies mpg. Now days it seems that manuals/autos are usually rated the same or just 1mpg difference.

I was really disappointed I couldn't get in the vehilce. The rep at the auto show said it had a preproduction interior. Strange with thousands of these things due in dealers in a week or so that they couldn't pull one of the the car carriers to show. :confuse:

Dunno, they didn't show up at NADA with one. Ford brought the new Escape AND the Focus ST, Subaru brought a friggin BRZ, but no Mazda.

Those cars are 6 months away at the earliest. Ford has a big problem with dealers right now because they are busy showcasing their upcoming products that are so far away and it is devaluing the current models. No one wants a 2012 Escape or 2012 Fusion knowing in the fall there are new designs on the way. Ford was stupid for disclosing new specs and designs so far in advance.

In regards to Mazda, there is no reason to showcase the CX-5 at NADA. The car hits the US shore this week. Why bother at NADA when they have been touring the North American auto show's?

It'd probably generate more interest if the FE was a little higher with the slushbox

26/32/28 and 25/31/28 are not high enough? Look at the city and combined mileage. Higher than anyone else, and 3 more MPG's than the new CR-V.

Considering that the new EPA estimate window stickers now show the combined mileage estimates is large bold print and the city and highway estimates in small print, I believe the CX-5 will stand out. People will be drawn to the combined number, not the highway number. That's a major plus for the CX-5.

When the stick is so dramatically higher and yet the slushbox was touted as more efficient than any stick, CVT, or DSG out there, no, it's not enough. They made some sort of drastic change to push the stick's mileage up to 35 MPG territory, and no one seems to know what it is, and I want to if it was done in the tranny or the engine...and if the engine, why wasn't it done to the automatic? The way gas prices are inching up, this is very important to some.

When the stick is so dramatically higher and yet the slushbox was touted as more efficient than any stick, CVT, or DSG out there, no, it's not enough.

So, let me get this straight.....a 3 mpg difference between the 6-speed manual and 6-speed auto is considered "dramatically higher" for highway economy, but when comparing the 6-speed auto to any other automatic from the competition, a 3 mpg advantage in overall fuel economy average is "not enough"? How does that make sense? If anything, the average fuel economy is far more important than highway economy.

And just who does the CX-5 beat out by 3 MPG with the automatic? Last I checked it's right in-line with the 2013 Ford Escape and 2012 Honda CR-V, who are the primary competitors. If you try and throw up 3 year old designs I'll laugh in your face.

Highway FE is what gets advertised, for obvious reasons. That alone makes it important.

If anything, the average fuel economy is far more important than highway economy.

That depends. To the majority of people probably yes but to many the hwy mpg is more important as they use these vehicle as commuter vehicles. Many commutes are 95% hwy and sometimes fairly long so when people start figuring the cost of their commuting versus another vehicle the hwy mpg stands out as very important. You as a Mazda salesperson should understand that versus telling people that it isn't important. You'll notice that most advertising stresses the 40MPG HWY on these commuter cars so obviously the manufactures think it's important as well.

You shouldn't pooh-pooh legitimate questions. On one hand you say a couple of mpgs doesn't matter and then try to make your point by saying the combined mpg is a couple of mpgs better. Can't have it both ways.

When the Mazda3 Skyactiv slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and then the CX-5 comes and gets substantially less(yes 3mpg is substantial to the consumer, maybe not to the salesman) hwy mpg with the automatic people want to know why....not a "aren't you satisfied with what you're getting".

I have the same question with the new Acura ILX 2.4L stick. It is a smaller car with the same engine as the TSX but is going to be rated according to Acura press at about 20/29. The TSX with the same engine and a slushbox is rated at 22/31. How does that makes sense? Same with Mazda's numbers....it doesn't make sense and we would like someone to explain the reasons. If you don't know just say so but don't belittle the question.

I've also yet had anyone explain to me why the Mazda3s slushbox gets worse mpg than the Mazda6 with the same drivetrain but is a smaller, lighter car. I asume it is a gearing change in the tranny and maybe a little aerodynamics but darned if anyone I've talked to at Mazda dealer ships has a clue. I've even had a couple of salespeople say "Gee, I never noticed that. That's a good question". I don't how you can stand around on a salesfloor all day and not notice some of these things and not have some decent answers.

Fuel economy for the 2013 Escape has not been released because the car is 6 months away.

Highway FE is what gets advertised, for obvious reasons. That alone makes it important.

The EPA is trying to eliminate the presumption that the highway economy is what they car will get, so they are trying to focus the buyer on the average. I think that is a good thing. I have never been a fan of advertising just the highway economy becuase it gives the buyer the assumption that is the expected overall economy, even though highway is stated.

For the record, I do not agree with the advertising by Mazda stating "35mpg" as a headliner for the CX-5, nor any other company that does the same.

That depends. To the majority of people probably yes but to many the hwy mpg is more important as they use these vehicle as commuter vehicles

That is true, but simply using highway economy alone as a measure in compairson is only telling 1/3 of the story. The CX-5 is 3mpg better than the new CR-V in 2/3's if the rating estimates. That's all I'm trying to say.

You as a Mazda salesperson should understand that versus telling people that it isn't important.

I'm not a Mazda salesperson.....

On one hand you say a couple of mpgs doesn't matter and then try to make your point by saying the combined mpg is a couple of mpgs better. Can't have it both ways.

I never said it didn't matter. Reread my posts.

When the Mazda3 Skyactiv slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and then the CX-5 comes and gets substantially less(yes 3mpg is substantial to the consumer, maybe not to the salesman) hwy mpg with the automatic people want to know why....not a "aren't you satisfied with what you're getting".

That is a valid question. I could dig into the gearing ratios and find out. I'll post back tomorrow about that....

For the record, I do not agree with the advertising by Mazda stating "35mpg" as a headliner for the CX-5, nor any other company that does the same.

I agree too but that is what the manufacturers mention in their ads so it goes to my point about the importance of hwy mpg to the consumer. Perception is reality.

Any idea as to why the Mazda3 Skyactiv w/ slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and the CX-5 stick gets substantially better than the Skyactiv slushbox? When someone expects the CX-5 slushbox to do as good or better than the stick and it comes in substantially below it raises legitimate questions. I'm sure there is a good reason and I would think that a sharp Mazda salesperson could get that information.

Tks for that info. True, not great differences in the final drive ratios with the M3 just a little more. To me the Mazda6 vs Mazda3 2.5L EPA estimates are even stranger. The M6 gets better mpg than the M3 so I can only assume the gearing is substantially different in the lighter, smaller M3 to cause this.

I guess I would have to ask where you have been too. He often comments in his posts that he is connected with Mazda. I believe in Conneticut or at least in the New England area. I don't always agree with him and sometimes he gets a little bit too "company line" but it's clear where he is coming from.

Ah, I remember him as a good guy from way back. But my memory goes way back too, and fails me now and then. :shades:

My mom had an old Protege for over a decade and would still have it if she hadn't of hung up her car keys. Always ran great. But it seems like problem posts have gone up with Mazda since they mostly split up with Ford, expecially with CX-9s and CX-7s. I'd take a Miata in a NY minute but the CX line gives me a bit of pause.

As a general rule people who bother to talk about a product have something negative to say. People who are satisfied don't feel quite as motivated.

That being said, my last Mazda3 grenaded at 74k miles (threw a rod) and while here and there Mazdas have been good, they're far from the bulletproof reputation of Honda and Subaru. Despite my problem I miss how that car drove.

That being said, my last Mazda3 grenaded at 74k miles (threw a rod) and while here and there Mazdas have been good, they're far from the bulletproof reputation of Honda and Subaru

Maybe true in regards to Honda's reputation, but definitely not Subaru. I have owned 2 and my family has owned a total of 12. All models from the early 1990's to the 2004 Forester and 2002 Impreza (most recently owned with issues) had head gaskets go and the fuel lines rotted out with around 50K on them. Very expensive to replace.

Subaru's are very good, but not "bullet-proof". In fact, no car is. The recent Honda's are not as good as the older ones, IMO. Somes Mazda's are better than others too. The MX-5 and Protege were excellent vehicles with very few, if any, problems while the 626 and MPV were far from perfect. Newer Mazda's rate out very well, and with CR, Mazda is the #2 non-luxury brand in reliability. Again, this does not mean they are "bullet-proof", but they are pretty damn good.

I believe in Conneticut or at least in the New England area. I don't always agree with him and sometimes he gets a little bit too "company line" but it's clear where he is coming from.

Yes, CT is where I live. If you must know, I'm in management at a dealership.

I take the "company line" as you put it because I believe in the product. I'm pretty passionate about the brand, which is pretty obvious. Mazda is not for everyone, and they are not a perfect company and I have openly disagreed with some of their methods, like advertising the CX-5 at "35mpg" when the majority of CX-5s can't get that. However, I respect their approach to building cars and who they build them for.

Honda still retains the reputation, as does Subaru (even if they should be falling out of it pretty soon). Mazda never quite made it to that level, though the Protege in particular was an amazingly reliable car, the Mazda3 was not, it had issues with engines, A/C, and some minor electronics issues. For some, the driving experience ended up being more important than these issues, and right up to the thrown rod I would have agreed completely. That thrown rod took away my fun driving experience though, and sentenced me to an Elantra Touring. :shades:

Despite THOSE issues, if I can get a Mazda3 Skyactiv with auto climate control, I'll jump at it. If they get the slushbox on the CX-5 to 35 MPG highway I'll jump at THAT (don't need AWD but I'd like the ground clearance). If not though, I have to look elsewhere.

I meant no disrespect and have always found you to be very upfront in the fact that you work for Mazda. My remark about the the "company line" was also meant just how you put it, that you are very passionate about your product which is great as long as the blinders can be removed at times.

Our 2007 Mazda6 is going on 70k and has been absolutely bulletproof. The only warranty adjustment was a tailpipe hanger that was fixed at the first oil change and since then there has been absolutely no repairs....not one! I'll be looking at the CX-5 to possibly replace our SUV soon.

I like the looks of the CX-7 and CX-9 but the the 9 is too big for my needs and the CX-7 has poor drivetrains IMO and I don't like the interior on the 7 either. The CX-5 is almost totally different then the CX-7 and in a good way. If it has enough pep(which I'm afraid it might not) it could be a player for me.